Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by bfg9000


Derrida's deconstruction of Heidegger and Hegel has made me look at those philosophers ideas in a different light. So there is some value to linguistics.

What Derrida seeks to undermine in common with other postmodernists is the metaphysical certainty not only that the unique 'I' behind any utterance guarantees a consistent, totally conscious, and rational point of view, or that a unified meaning might be traced back to an originary intention, but also that graphic modes of representation, be they in words or images, directly refer to a pre-existent reality.

And that isn't enough to hate them for? I almost hate you for writing that run on sentence of explanation.

[BeBro]

Can we use "Postmodernist!" as an insult?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by BeBro
Can we use "Postmodernist!" as an insult?

Is there another usage?

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Yes, that just shows us the fasco-capitalist mentality doesn't it?

Open your markets or we'll make you!!!

Geez, Bastiat wasn't advocating military invasions if free trade is dis-allowed, he was explaining that trade wars are not conducive to peace but can lead to militaristic wars.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Sikander


And that isn't enough to hate them for? I almost hate you for writing that run on sentence of explanation.

Sure, Derrida is annoying, but name one iconoclast in history that didn't get a few people pissed off.

Language can give away either an underlying belief system that remains unconscious to the writer's intention (not unlike the Freudian slip), or expose an unrecognized rupture in a text's logic; which is why linguistic ambiguity, once exposed, does not merely highlight that meaning cannot be determined, but can uncover a whole nest of contradictions in the reasoning of those who profess themselves to rely on such concepts as reason and unitary demeaning for the coherency of their argument.

The most annoying thing about Derrida's deconstruction is when you realize that his deconstructive readings can themselves be deconstructed. Derrida doesn't deny this.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


I see.

So all it would take for me to value her opinions would be to suffer a massive stroke?

Nah. Just be somebody with a propensity to think rationalistically, to suppress or distrust emotions, and to render moralistic judgments in terms of absolutes, without acknowledging ambiguities.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ah. I'd need to become autistic. Thanks for explaining.

[OzzyKP]

Favorites: Jesus (of course), probably John Locke, John Taylor Gatto (though no pure philosophical books yet written, from what i've read in his books on schooling i think I agree with him more than any other philosopher, I'd love to see a general book written by him. Very interesting blend of conservative and liberal thought. Very individualistic, but not selfish and greedy like Rand. Seems to oppose big corporations and big government. Also some Christian morality in there too.)

Least Fav - Deffinately Neitzche. That bastard can rot in hell. He gave us Hitler. All about the "will to power" do whatever you can to grab as much power as possible. Sick philosophy.

[Buck Birdseed]

Oooh, you've insulted neitsche. Cue GePap in 5...4...3...2...1...

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

Least Fav - Deffinately Neitzche. That bastard can rot in hell. He gave us Hitler. All about the "will to power" do whatever you can to grab as much power as possible. Sick philosophy.

Yeah, Neitzche is on my least fav list. He really was a morose guy. Plus he went nuts not to soon after he finished his last work. Not the kind of sound mind that would be one to model a personal philosophy after.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, Neitzche is on my least fav list. He really was a morose guy. Plus he went nuts not to soon after he finished his last work. Not the kind of sound mind that would be one to model a personal philosophy after.

You know Kant went nuts too .

And to say Nietzche 'gave us' Hitler is to be very ignorant of Nietzchian philosophy. I'm sure he would have hated Nazi Germany.

[Sava]

faves: not many that I like... John Locke... I like Thomas Jefferson's philosophy on what government should be. And Teddy Roosevelts' view on what America should be (superpower, business kept in line)... however those two weren't "philosophers" so to speak. Socrates' views on wisdom are good.

least faves:
Nietzche (the guy was a nutbag... used to talk to his horse)

Freud (a friggin coke fiend)

Thomas Aqoinous(sp?) -- the most ignorant and uninformed rantings about why God must exist... I literally couldn't stop laughing when I was reading his stuff.

Karl Marx -- that's right commies, your savior is a dope... while his recognition and hatred of the rich and powerful is shared by me, he inanely believes that human beings are inherently good. Sorry, if people were good, they wouldn't be so evil and heartless in positions of power.

Just a side note: I don't like when people say "Jesus" is their favorite philosopher. First, he wasn't necessarily a philosopher. Second, he was the epitome of modesty that he didn't want to be worshipped like HE was god... I like Jesus, it's his dope followers that scare me.

[GePap]

Do you need to ask?

Nietzsche did not "give us Hitler" A five second read of his work wuld show what his support of German nationalism was like. Do try to read his works, and not just the crap out there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Freud (a friggin coke fiend)

Freud isn't technically a philosopher... though I guess that depends on what you think of psychology .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Freud isn't technically a philosopher... though I guess that depends on what you think of psychology .

yeah... but he's close enough... and I consider his "pioneering" in psychology to be akin to philosophy. Plus, a lot of his views are considered to be philosophical.

[Ramo]

Greed drives capitalism and I'd say capitalism is morally superior to any other economic system, so why do you find that morally despicable?

I wouldn't say capitalism is morally superior to socialism. And I say that because I value freedom - generalized freedom, not the freedoms Rand or Locke might prefer.

Even your ideology which is quite similar is based on "greed".

It doesn't ignore the effects of greed, but it's based on social cooperation, not simply "enlightened self-interest."

I wouldn't say her philosophy is that greed is good.

She defines self-interest as moral. That sounds a lot like greed is good to me.

In order to understand Rand's outlook on things I think you have to understand her life. She was a baby of the Communist Revolution and had her family thrown into poverty by the Marxists. Anyone who would have gone through that would have some very hard views on who and what the "looters" are and what capitalism is really all about.

And I'm sure anyone who spent many years in Russia's jails for having the gall to try to unionize and strike against a St. Petersburg industrialist would have some very hard views on who and what the "looters" are and what capitalism is really about.

[lord of the mark]

Some comments

FN - his style, while perhaps necessary to his subject matter, makes it difficult to understand exactly what hes trying to say. FN as interpretated by Kaufman is no proto- Nazi - FN as interpreted by his right wing epigones is - but which is the real FN? I have more respect for WK than for the right wing loonies, but I think WK is sometimes kinder to FN than FN warrents

Marx - mainly of interest as a sociologist and historical thinker - the relationship of class to political power, and as a driving force in history. Of little value as an economist, or political system founder. Maybe as a philosopher, though I dont think so. As with many broad thinkers of the 19th c, hard to charecterize.


Hegel - gravely underestimated due to his style I think, and unfashionability in the English speaking world (and current unfashionability of existentialists) I havent read much, but impressed based on reading of Fukiyama and Fackenheim on Hegel. Different Hegel than my impression. Important to those like me looking for a non-Lockean basis for political liberalism.

Rosenzweig - not important to most of y'all, I suppose, but to those looking for a modernist, non-funadmentalist, post-Kantian basis for theism, especially for Judaism, perhaps the most important philosopher - again ive read only a little, but Fackenheim among others has convinced me of this importance.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by bfg9000
Nah. Just be somebody with a propensity to think rationalistically, to suppress or distrust emotions, and to render moralistic judgments in terms of absolutes, without acknowledging ambiguities.

And you'd have to be a cultist.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by skywalker


And you'd have to be a cultist.

free Nike sneakers and Kool Aid, who could ask for more?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
My favorite would also be myself

Least favorite would be Ayn Rand

First of all her philosophy is wayyyyyyyyy too rigid

Secondly it's quoted alot by eighth graders

You discuss philosophy with a lot of eighth graders, Ted?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Some comments

FN - his style, while perhaps necessary to his subject matter, makes it difficult to understand exactly what hes trying to say. FN as interpretated by Kaufman is no proto- Nazi - FN as interpreted by his right wing epigones is - but which is the real FN? I have more respect for WK than for the right wing loonies, but I think WK is sometimes kinder to FN than FN warrents

On several topics, like women, Nietzsche is a bastard, and usually wrong. In fact, most of his solutions I found terrible. BUt like Imran, his analysis is deeply original-
I personally can see why facists would pick up on the Will to Power poritons of Nietzsche, but a simple translation of what he said on nationalism, the state, and anti-semitism shows that he shared almost nothing with right-wing nationalist ideology. He hated the state- he would have reviled the notion of slavishly following a "Fuhrer", of mythologizing any ideology without thought, so forth an so on. For me, most people who call him an anti-semite never read most of his works. My bet is most nazi types read Zarathustra and Will to Power, which his anti-semitic right wing suster edited after his death, and little else in his books.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BUt like Imran, his analysis is deeply original

Like Imran SAID... don't give me too much credit now .

he would have reviled the notion of slavishly following a "Fuhrer", of mythologizing any ideology without thought, so forth an so on

Yep, Fascism is herd mentality at its worst.

[Ned]

Favorite: Orwell
Least favorite: Marx

[Evil Knevil]

Oh dear. He thinks Orwell is a philosopher.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap


On several topics, like women, Nietzsche is a bastard, and usually wrong.

My favourite: "All men are created for war, and all women for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly!"

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

It doesn't ignore the effects of greed, but it's based on social cooperation, not simply "enlightened self-interest."

But you wouldn't force or require social cooperation and enlightened self-interest typically involves social cooperation. And your ideology is based on capitalism, not socialism, so you must think capitalism superior to socialism... You just think it wiser, more equitable, for employees to own the business they labor for but that they still compete within the marketplace... And why? Because it's in the enlightened sef-interest of the workers to own their business and that their business compete with others on a level playing field.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by bfg9000

Sure, Derrida is annoying, but name one iconoclast in history that didn't get a few people pissed off.

Language can give away either an underlying belief system that remains unconscious to the writer's intention (not unlike the Freudian slip), or expose an unrecognized rupture in a text's logic; which is why linguistic ambiguity, once exposed, does not merely highlight that meaning cannot be determined, but can uncover a whole nest of contradictions in the reasoning of those who profess themselves to rely on such concepts as reason and unitary demeaning for the coherency of their argument.

The most annoying thing about Derrida's deconstruction is when you realize that his deconstructive readings can themselves be deconstructed. Derrida doesn't deny this.

It just plain doesn't do anyone any good who doesn't have a tenured spot at the University riding on it. Great, so a bunch of former Marxists can sit around at public expense and nit-pick a text apart in an orgy of psuedo-intellectual masturbation dressed up in a bunch of terminology designed to obscure all meaning. What a boon to society! What (lack of) meaning this must give to the lives of these people. Look we can tear apart anything ever said by anyone! Well so can my 13 year old nephew, a lot more amusingly, for less money and in language that even his little sister can understand. And the beauty is that he will grow out of it eventually and turn his hand to something constructive.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

My favorite philosopher is Comrade Tassadar

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker

UBoris -

No, oligarchy is rule by a minority, a small minority. It doesn't pre-suppose past crimes any more than rule by the majority (democracy) pre-supposes past or current crimes.

Yes it does. Because, again, the human history is an history of people plundering others- those who rise above the rest are the better plunderers. Anyway, there has only been oligarchies throughout history- democracy is only about alternating them with some influence of the people.

Sure, complexities can make redress impractical or impossible, but whether or not redress is feasible matters not to what should happen in the future. Past plundering cannot justify future plundering even if the past cannot be fixed. Return the stolen loot that can be returned and stop future plundering, that's Bastiat's position and I see nothing wrong with it at all. Your "refutation" of his argument is "we can't fix the past so we should continue doing the same thing". If you object to past plundering, why do you embrace current and future plundering?

I think you don't seem to get my point here. Bastiat's position cannot be held- because there can't be any justice in partial restitutions, since those who have commited the unfixable plunders would be at an undue advantage over the others.
Is my argument "we can't fix the past so we should continue"? sorta. But you're being dishonest here, because that's my thesis, and certainly not my demonstration, which you seem to be dodging.

Children don't plunder the funds for public schools, politicians and their supporters do that. But your argument is: "someone else is doing it, therefore we are justified in doing it too".

First, what I said here has nothing to do with "someone else is doing it, so we are justified". It was rather intended as a demonstration of a simple fact: everyone is doing it. I'm not drawing any conclusion here... yet.
(and I'll be coming back later to your "children don't plunder" statement).

Nope, no one forced that worker to agree to a contract even if you don't think it is in his best interest. How much was he making before Nike showed up to offer him a job? If it was slave labor, then stop the slavery and seek redress for the victim from the slaveholder.

Someone was forcing him: his name is "starvation". And someone was profitting from this starvation to impose unfair conditions: Nike. (BTW, it is far from sure that sweatshops are paying more than local industries. In fact, many of them are profitting from the quick increase of population in the third world and the subsequent lack of good agricultural land to offer their disgusting jobs as the only alternative).
Do you have any serious argument against Marx' conception of alienation, which states that as soon that someone owns the means of productions, he is at an undue advantage that must be counterbalanced by the law? A poor's labor, which is his only wealth, can be abused in an outrageous way, because everyone needs a shelter and some food. There can't be any freedom in deciding whether or not you want to have them. You do, and you follow the rules of those who could be providing those.

And what next? As soon as the means of production are owned, then they must be inevitably transferred when the owner dies. This is the root of "oligarchy". This is a gross example, of course, since there can be other, subtler ways: such as education in top colleges in which you get to meet the other future oligarchs, or the generally intellectually favorable milieu of the wealthy families.

Really? You mean if a workforce decided to strike and were told to leave the property if they won't work, the employers called in the police to beat the workers up as they were leaving the property? No, strikers attacked "scabs" and tried to shut down businesses that wouldn't give in. That's when police were called in - to protect the rights of others to engage in business. And that isn't an example of a weak state being overpowered by a business, it's an example of a powerful state defending an obviously weaker business that lacked the power to defend itself.

Don't make me laugh. Scabs should be (and are in some countries) illegal. They are a direct attack against the worker's only possible power: their workforce. Just think of it a second: if an employer can dispose of its workers at will and get other ones, why can't workers dismiss their employer at will and get the one they wish?
Of course, this is absolutely unthinkable. But disallowing scabs is the least we can do. Otherwise, we can only have a ridiculous, one-sided 'free' market in the field of employment.
I would go farther and say that there is a major problem in the conception of property on which your reasoning seems to be based. The fact is, there comes a point where the most efficient way you can gain property is through rental of someone else's labor, which is oftentimes its sole property. But in most current conceptions, the 'physical' property supercedes the 'potential' one which lies in workforce. The idea that one has the right to benefit from his work to its full extent only holds true when you own the facilities, because the vast majority of human beings receive less than the amount of work they are doing, while a minority of them receives much more (i.e. the millionaires). Labor is not only a tool towards property; it is a kind of property in itself that is not and never will be respected in an unrestricted capitalist system.

Now back to our history books. It was only in the beginning of the 20th century that strikes were legalized. So all the oppression that had occured before had nothing to do with the scabs or the invasion of private properties: being a worker on strike was strictly illegal anyway. You must be naive to believe that workers were only brutalized when they invaded private properties. The barons and the governments abused their power up to their houses, persecuted them in the streets, and didn't have any qualms about asking the Cossacks or whatever force needed for help. Hell, even in the 50s, my grandfather went to jail because he was on strike- which was not even supposed to be illegal anymore.

Note the irony: the rich, who usually conceive prosperity as a tool to achieve greater goals, such as happiness, justice, artistic endeavours, or justice, are acting the opposite. Their social rhetoric, based on the economic thinking, would have everyone a mere tool in the gearing towards productivity and wealth. They are enslaving the poor's workforce into being a 'tool of their own tool' and are selling it as an absolute good, which will bring democracy everywhere, etc.

And now to your other quotes- we'll be discussing the problem of 'privately-operated' states.

Did these corporations do the conquering or powerful states? These aren't examples of powerful businesses overpowering weak states.

I think this shows your misconception of what a State really is. A State is an organization that holds the monopoly of violence over a given territory. Usually, this monopoly has been sort of granted by consensus, but sometimes it is taken over by brute force. In this, a State is an extension of the individuals' power, and not an independant entity which inherited its monopoly from some kind of 'divine' right, who would then seek to expand it because of an inalienable mission.

In fact, what Bastiat describes as a State- something that wages a perpetual war in order to increase its plunder, is much more similar to what a Corporation really is: an organization whose sole duty, defined by a legal charter, is to generate profit and redistribute it proportionally to every shareholder's stance in the company. The only difference, if I well understand Bastiat, would be that a State's shareholders are not clearly defined, and thus a petty war between the citizens to get the 'dividends'.

True, the larger the State, the higher the possibility of a small bureaucratic bourgeoisie class rising from its existence, whose sole objective would be to increase its power and nurture its wealth from the State itself. But the truth is not quite like this: this small bourgeoisie has usually been kept at bay (think of the various welfare states who have undergone privatization and service cuts to reduce taxes as an example of this). And a State's goals in using its 'violence monopoly' have rarely been absolutely clear and defined. They are much more of a mosaic of the variable interests underlying those who have founded it than anything as obvious as a Corporate charter.

Now to my point: a State is not a Corporation intent on plundering for itself; it is a 'violence monopoly' which can be used by anyone already part of the civil society, by whatever means he can use to access the power (example: a coup, a political donation, a vote, or outright bribery) to enforce its own plunder. Therefore, each and every 'plundering' commited by the State (a meta-entity) has been done on behalf of someone in the society (a micro-entity) wishing to profit for himself.
So, let's answer your question here: yes, the oppression and the conquests of the colonization and industrial era have been commited directly on behalf of the oligarchs, who at the time had appropriated for themselves the major part of the Western States' structure to fulfill their private agenda. The unfair laws against labor unions and the securizing of mines in Africa are a prime example of this.

And that's why you don't agree with Bastiat, he wants to end all plunder and you just want a share of the loot and use the past as your justification.

He may or he may not, I don't mind. What I do mind, however, is the fact that Bastiat's proposals will in no way put an end to any plunder. The system he puts forward can only result in Anarcho-Capitalism, which, is by definition, the apotheosis of plundering by a financial oligarchy who, once the welfare states are of no more help to them, would tear them apart to build their own law, now that they have the necessary billions. Forgoing our current welfare to pave the way for this is the silliest thing we can do.

Do I really want my 'share of the loot'? Well, I'm not here to depict my private life in detail, but I can assure you that from my family background, I have been personally much more of a 'looted' than a 'looter'- that is, if we follow your logic in which abusing someone else's labor does not count as plundering...

Given that:
-every human throughout history has been plundering;
-every state has;
-every corporations has, usually to the fullest extent it could afford;
-that most humans and corporations will continue to do it if there is no strong police force to prevent them,
I believe that the violence monopoly held by the state is merely a 'compromise', a moderating tool between each and every small or larger plundering done by the elemets of a society.

It is false to assume we can base human societies and rules of living on something else than plunder, because the desire for profit is strictly amoral (for most anyway); what we can do, however, is to create welfare states that provide everyone in need for health, food, education and basic shelter, that have a strong police force, and above all, consider their political subjects (the individuals) more important than the purely economic ones (the corporations, who can confer substantial power to any individual). In that way, whatever 'plundering' will ever be going on, it will greatly reduce the worst consequences this could have: starvation, absence of healthcare, child labor, etc.

Earlier you denied supporting socialistic plunder and here you justify and endorse it. As I said before, welfare states aren't about plundering to rectify past plunder. They are about expanding the magnitude of the plunder with more looters waiting for their cut. Either you oppose plunder or you support it, Bastiat opposed it, and you support it. You just want to be among those deciding who gets plundered and who does the plundering, that's no different than the plunderers of the past...

Well, I certainly understand your point. But my real position here is a pragmatic one: plunder has and will always be going on anyway. That is a rule of life. The two worst cases of plunder are those of anarcho-capitalism and those of socialism: in the middle of both are our current social-democracies, based on regulated capitalism and wealth redistribution. The best thing we can do about it is to base our states on fundamental principles, by which we would strive to give everyone the means to have equal chances in our cruel world, so that the only plunder we 'suffer' is one aimed at achieving this goal, while in the same time being compassionate to the 'losers' who find themselves in desperate conditions. This is the kind of compromise that brings moral freedom to everyone, social stability, and relieves us of most of the fundamental fears (to die unfairly), while at the same time allowing for a partial economic freedom way sufficient to allow people to become extremely wealthy, should they feel the need to.
The State is a social contract which is ours to define; a corporation whose goals we can choose at will. Don't let economic freedom gobble them up.

[Whoha]

Favorites:Adam Smith, Nozwick,David Ricardo(not his free trade views, his "Malthus is wrong" views)

Least:Malthus,Marx,Engles